APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION: A SYMBOL DIVIDED
(published in The Living Church, December 29, 2002)
By Bryce McProud
The doctrine of apostolic succession is critical for our self-understanding as Anglicans. It is a symbol and source of unity for us and its practice can be traced at least back to the fIrst century, when Clement of Rome taught that it was key to the mission and ministry of Christ. Today there is a crisis in our church regarding this doctrine. The recent conflicts in the dioceses of Pennsylvania and New Westminster are examples of the crisis of division in apostolic succession.
Apostolic succession has two components: The fIrst is the tactile (the laying on of hands) and institutional component that gives power and authority to bishops by virtue of scripture (Acts 1:23ff), tradition, and reason because of the need for oversight which bishops by defInition provide. (Episcopal is from the Greek Epi over and Scopos seer.)
The second component of apostolic succession is the succession of the faith. As stated in Jude 3, we have a faith "once delivered," defIned by the creeds and the rest of the Bible and increasingly debated over the centuries as new situations cause reflection and action and sometimes reaction. The recent conflict with some of our evangelical Lutheran Church (ELCA) colleagues about tactile succession is focused at least in part on the fact that we do not require a "confessing" theology which they understand is the primary component of apostolic succession. Although orthodox clergy in the Anglican Communion embrace a continuity of theology, it is not required, and there are those who refute the necessity. This includes some bishops, perhaps even the bishops of Pennsylvania and New Westminster, although that is not clear.
The conflicts in these two dioceses have many complex issues tied with them, but the bottom line is that both bishops are asserting their tactile, institutional understanding of apostoijc succession and the dissenters are asserting their understanding of apostolic succession:as a succession of the faith which has been affIrmed by the vast majority of the Anglican Communion and the even greater number of other Christians worldwide.
It is obvious the ideal would be to bind together the tactile institutional nature and the faith nature of apostolic succession into one cohesive whole. It is equally obvious that this is not happening, so the question is, "What is to be done?"
I think the position of the recently retired Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey, Archbishop Rowan Williams, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold and the Anglican Consultative Council are all correct. Until the matters of human sexuality and the ordination of women are resolved, any unilateral action taken like that in New Westminster and Pennsylvania will damage, perhaps irreparably, the whole of the Communion, indeed the rest of the greater church. Further, one simply cannot be forced to accept something which is contrary to conscience and is not in accord with the apostolic faith.
Both the Bishop of New Westminster and the Bishop of Pennsylvania show that they believe that their tactile, institutional power (even endorsed by the governances of their dioceses) supersedes apostolic faith. Time and the Holy Spirit will tell.
